CopyCited 25 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 56 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 207, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14339, 46 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 180, 2006 WL 1586583
...district
court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their adversary
complaint against Dr. Luis Fernandez-Rocha (the “Debtor”) based on his failure to
comply with Florida’s Financial Responsibility Act, Florida Statutes § 458.320.
On appeal, the Guerras challenge the bankruptcy court and district court’s
determination that the debt in issue is dischargeable in bankruptcy....
...for relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy
Code”). On February 26, 2001, the Guerras filed in the bankruptcy case an
adversary proceeding against the Debtor. The Guerras’ adversary complaint
asserted that, pursuant to Florida Statutes § 458.320, the Debtor was obligated to
establish a fund to pay claims arising out of his rendering of, or failure to render,
medical care and services, and that the Debtor had a fiduciary duty to his patients
to maintain a claims fund of $250,000 per claim or $750,000 in the aggregate....
...On
September 9, 2002, the Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the Guerras’ adversary
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. The Debtor argued, inter alia, that Florida
Statutes § 458.320 is a regulatory statute and does not create a fiduciary duty or
any technical trust between the Debtor and the Guerras, and thus the § 523(a)(4)
exception to discharge does not apply to any debt between the Debtor and the
1...
...The Guerras appealed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal to the district court,
and the district court affirmed. The Guerras now appeal to this Court.
II. DISCUSSION
The Florida Financial Responsibility Act, Florida Statutes § 458.320,
requires that to obtain a license a physician must maintain either malpractice
insurance, or a letter of credit payable to the physician, or an escrow account of his
own funds to demonstrate his financial responsibility in the event of a malpractice
award against him. See Fla. Stat. § 458.320(1). As did the bankruptcy court and
the district court, we accept the allegations of the Guerras’ adversary complaint as
true and will assume that the Debtor failed to comply with his obligations under §
458.320 and that there is no claims fund, malpractice insurance, or letter of credit
to satisfy a portion of the Guerras’ $4.2 million judgment against the Debtor.3
2
The Debtor also argued that Florida Statutes § 458.320 did not apply because the
Guerras’ verdict against him was for breach of contract and not negligence....
...However, the
bankruptcy court rejected this argument, and the Debtor does not raise this issue in this appeal.
Thus, we will assume that the Guerras’ $4.2 million judgment against the Debtor for breach of
contract would fall within the “rendering of, or failure to render, medical care and services”
language of § 458.320.
3
In an appeal from a district court sitting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case, this
Court employs the same standards of review as the district court....
...Northern (In
5
Further, the Guerras’ adversary complaint is not based on the Debtor’s
failure to obtain malpractice insurance or provide a letter of credit, but is based
solely on the Debtor’s not having established a claims fund under § 458.320 that
could then be used to pay the Guerras’ malpractice judgment. Thus, the only issue
in this appeal is whether the Debtor’s failure to maintain the claims fund under §
458.320 created a debt that falls within the § 523(a)(4) exception to discharge for
debts for “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” We first review prior
judicial interpretation of the § 523(a)(4) exception and then apply it to this case.
A....
...atient relationship creates
fiduciary duties or that malpractice debts are generally non-dischargeable. Rather,
they contend that the Debtor owed his patients a fiduciary duty, created by the
Florida Financial Responsibility Act, Florida Statutes § 458.320, to maintain funds
to satisfy malpractice debts....
...The Guerras argue that the Debtor breached that
fiduciary duty by failing to maintain those funds and that the Guerras have a non-
dischargeable claim against the Debtor for the amount of the required fund to pay
their malpractice award. Thus, we examine whether § 458.320 creates a fiduciary
duty or technical trust between the Debtor and the Guerras or even any debt
between them.
“As a condition of licensing and maintaining an active [medical] license,” §
10
458.320 requires that a physician “must by one of the following methods
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the board and the department financial
responsibility to pay claims and costs ancillary thereto arising out of the rendering
of, or failur...
...The letter of credit must be payable to the
physician as beneficiary upon presentment of a final judgment
indicating liability and awarding damages to be paid by the physician
or upon presentment of a settlement agreement . . . .
Fla. Stat. § 458.320(1). Thus, to obtain a medical license, § 458.320(1) requires
that a physician maintain either an escrow account, professional liability coverage,
or a letter of credit in an amount of $100,000 per claim with a minimum aggregate
of $300,000. Id. As to physicians who have hospital staff privileges, such as the
Debtor here, § 458.320(2) increases those amounts to $250,000 per claim or
$750,000 in the aggregate. Fla. Stat. § 458.320(2).
On appeal, there is no dispute that the Debtor was required by Florida law to
maintain an escrow fund, or malpractice coverage, or a letter of credit; nor is there
11
any dispute that he failed to do so. However, for several reasons, we conclude that
§ 458.320 does not create a fiduciary duty or technical trust or even a debt between
the Debtor and the Guerras for purposes of § 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
First,§ 458.320 is a regulatory statute requiring that the Debtor demonstrate
financial responsibility to the State to maintain his license and hospital staff
privileges....
...party patients. The
statute does not require the physician to hold and account for the funds to third
party patients. The statute does not create any property right in a doctor’s escrow
fund in favor of a patient. Rather, the stated purpose of §
458.320 is to require
physicians to “demonstrate to the satisfaction of the board and the department
financial responsibility to pay claims and costs” arising out of medical care. Put
simply, §
458.320 requires that a physician demonstrate financial responsibility to
the appropriate state licensing authorities through certain means, but it does not
12
create in malpractice victims an entitlement to those means. See Hanft v. Church
(In re Hanft),
315 B.R. 617, 624 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (“Plainly, the ultimate purpose of
[§
458.320] is to ensure that patients will be reimbursed for successful malpractice
claims, but that does not mean that the patients are ‘identifiable beneficiaries’ as
required for creation of a technical trust.”).5
Third, “[t]he definition of ‘defalcation’ as ‘a failure to produce funds
entrusted to a fiduciary,’ Quaif,
4 F.3d at 955, further compels the conclusion that
Fla. Stat. §
458.320 does not create a fiduciary duty, because no funds are
‘entrusted’ to a doctor under the statute.” Hanft, 315 B.R....
...fied
by the escrow account used to satisfy the statute; a physician could choose to satisfy any
malpractice judgment through other funds. A prevailing malpractice plaintiff does not have a
claim or entitlement to the escrow account established under § 458.320, but rather would be a
general creditor of the defendant physician, and the physician could pay the judgment with
whatever funds he desires.
6
To the extent the Guerras argue that the act that created the debt was the malpractice
judgment and that the debt is rendered non-dischargeable by the Debtor’s failure to satisfy §
458.320, that argument lacks merit....
...Further, the § 523(a)(4) exception to dischargeability addresses
debts “for fraud or defalcation,” not for malpractice. The Guerras could have a non-
dischargeable debt only if that debt was for defalcation of funds held in a fiduciary capacity. As
explained above, § 458.320 does not create a fiduciary duty or even a debt for purposes of §
523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
13
proposition that statutes such as § 458.320 create fiduciary duties....
...However, the
Guerras’ argument is misplaced. As noted earlier, the Georgia statute at issue in
Quaif explicitly stated that funds received by agents were to hold and account for
premiums in a fiduciary capacity. Here, as explained above, nothing in § 458.320
suggests that any funds required to be maintained would be held in a fiduciary
capacity. Nothing in § 458.320 requires the physician to perform any accounting
to patients of any funds held to satisfy the § 458.320 regulatory requirements.
Accordingly, the district court and bankruptcy court did not err in
concluding that the Guerras’ claim against the Debtor based on his failure to
comply with § 458.320 falls outside the defalcation exception to discharge set forth
in § 523(a)(4).7
III....
...CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Guerras’ adversary complaint.
AFFIRMED.
7
In the district court, the Debtor argued that § 458.320 is a regulatory statute and creates
no private right of action in the Guerras and that their adversary complaint fails to state a cause
of action. The Debtor did not make this argument in the bankruptcy court and the district court
did not address this issue but based its ruling on whether § 458.320 involved a fiduciary duty for
purposes of § 523(a)(4). We need not and do not address whether any private right of action
could exist under § 458.320 under any circumstances.
14
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2007 WL 1498968
...seeks recovery from a hospital where the physician had staff privileges, alleging that the hospital should be liable to her for failing to ensure that the physician complied with statutory financial responsibility requirements. The issue is whether section 458.320, Florida Statutes (2006), which outlines the financial responsibility requirements for physicians practicing in Florida, imposes civil liability on the hospital under these circumstances....
...Paschall,
767 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), Baker v. Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc.,
780 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Baumgardner,
870 So.2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), all of which recognized a statutory cause of action based on section
458.320....
...We conclude, based on a review of the applicable statutory provisions, that the Legislature did not intend to impose civil liability on hospitals for failing to ensure that physicians who are granted staff privileges comply with the financial responsibility requirements of section 458.320....
...The malpractice action resulted in a verdict in the Horowitzes' favor and a final judgment against Dr. Jhagroo in the amount of $859,200.73. However, the judgment was uncollectible because Dr. Jhagroo failed to maintain malpractice insurance or otherwise comply with the financial responsibility requirements of section 458.320, owned no real property in the United States, and resided in another country. In February 2001, after unsuccessfully attempting to collect the judgment from Dr. Jhagroo, the Horowitzes filed suit against Plantation. [1] The amended complaint alleged that Plantation breached a statutory duty under section 458.320(2) in failing to ensure the financial responsibility of Dr....
...The issue on summary judgment was whether the holdings of the Second, Third, and Fifth Districts would apply to a case in which the underlying malpractice occurred in the physician's office rather than the hospital. See Horowitz,
895 So.2d at 485. [3] In Robert, one of the conflict cases, the Fifth District determined that section
458.320(2) mandates financial responsibility as a condition to maintaining staff privileges and therefore imposes a duty on the hospital to ensure physician compliance....
...On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the judgment of the trial court without drawing a distinction between malpractice that occurs in a hospital and malpractice that occurs in a physician's office. The Fourth District rejected the assertion that section
458.320 creates a statutory cause of action against a hospital "whether it be based on strict liability, negligence, suretyship, contract, contribution, indemnification, criminal punishment, or any other legal theory the creative minds of lawyers can discern." Horowitz,
895 So.2d at 488....
...t to make hospitals liable for the unsatisfied malpractice judgments of their staff-privileged physicians. Id. at 487. The court noted that its decision conflicted with Robert, Baker and Baumgardner. Id. at 488. ANALYSIS Our determination of whether section 458.320 imposes civil liability on hospitals is a question of statutory interpretation....
...Then, we discuss how this Court determines whether a statute imposes civil liability when the Legislature has not expressly provided for a private remedy. Finally, with this framework in mind, we examine the primary purpose of chapter 458, the language of section 458.320, other provisions in chapter 458, and related provisions in other chapters to determine legislative intent....
...action and noted "that no case, either in Florida or elsewhere, has recognized the tort of negligent selection of a financially `incompetent' physician." Beam,
486 So.2d at 673. Although the Fifth District in Robert recognized a statutory duty under section
458.320(2), the court declined to equate a duty to ensure physician compliance with the statutory financial responsibility requirements with a duty to ensure a physician's professional competence, namely, the common law duty of hospitals to select and retain professionally competent staff physicians....
...In determining the meaning of the language used, we look not only to the words themselves but also to "the context in which the language lies." Miele v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc.,
656 So.2d 470, 472 (Fla.1995). C. Chapter 458, Florida Statutes Horowitz relies on section
458.320, entitled "Financial Responsibility," to assert that the Legislature intended to impose a duty on, and create a cause of action against, the hospital....
...This is evidenced by the Legislature's statement "that physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state." Id. With this overview in mind, we turn to the pertinent provisions of chapter 458. Section 458.320 sets forth the statutory financial responsibility requirements for physicians practicing in Florida. The first subsection of this provision applies to all physicians and requires, as a condition of licensure, that physicians demonstrate a financial ability to pay medical malpractice claims. See § 458.320(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Specifically, section 458.320(1) provides: As a condition of licensing and maintaining an active license, and prior to the issuance or renewal of an active license or reactivation of an inactive license for the practice of medicine, an applicant must by one of the...
...ing professional liability coverage in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim and $300,000 in total; or (c) obtaining and maintaining an unexpired, irrevocable letter of credit in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim and $300,000 in total. § 458.320(1)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. Subsection (2) of section 458.320 applies only to physicians who perform ambulatory surgery and physicians who are granted staff privileges at a hospital....
...This subsection provides that " [p]hysicians who perform surgery in an ambulatory surgical center licensed under chapter 395 and, as a continuing condition of hospital staff privileges, physicians who have staff privileges must also establish financial responsibility. " § 458.320(2), Fla....
...ty. However, we conclude that there is no indication in this single statement of legislative intent to impose civil liability on hospitals. This determination is reinforced by reading this statutory provision in conjunction with other subsections of section 458.320, and within the greater context of chapter 458 and related statutory provisions discussing hospital responsibilities....
...Examination of these other provisions *184 is appropriate because, as we have previously stated, "[i]t is axiomatic that all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole." Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist.,
604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992). Although section
458.320(2) requires staff-privileged physicians to comply with the statutory financial responsibility requirements, section
458.320(5)(g) authorizes physicians to "opt out" of these requirements. Section
458.320(5)(g) states that any licensed practitioner who, among other things, agrees to "pay the judgment creditor . . . $250,000, if the physician is licensed pursuant to this chapter and maintains hospital staff privileges, within 60 days after the date such judgment [becomes] final," is exempt from the financial responsibility requirements of section
458.320(2). Thus, this provision allows a physician to maintain hospital staff privileges without having to establish financial responsibility as required by section
458.320(2). See id. Under section
458.320(5)(g), a physician could be in compliance with the provision when he or she receives staff privileges by agreeing to be personally liable for malpractice judgments in the future, but nevertheless be unable to satisfy the judgment when it becomes due....
...privileges, the hospital cannot ensure that the physician will be able to satisfy the malpractice judgment once it is entered. Additionally, if the physician fails to pay the first $250,000 of the judgment and therefore falls out of compliance with section 458.320(5)(g), he or she is only subject to discipline by the Department of Health. Clearly, the Legislature could not have intended to require the hospital to guarantee the future financial responsibility of a physician who makes an election under section 458.320(5)(g). [9] Given this logical interpretation of the "opt-out" provision in section 458.320(5)(g), it would be inconsistent to read section 458.320(2) as requiring a hospital to ensure or guarantee payment of the first $250,000 of a malpractice judgment against a physician....
...Beyond the alternative methods for establishing financial responsibility, the statutory enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance indicate that the Legislature did not intend to hold a hospital liable for a physician's failure to comply with the requirements of section 458.320. Section 458.320(3)(a) provides that the physician must meet the "financial responsibility requirements of this section . . . at the time of issuance or renewal of a license." Under this provision, it is the physician's responsibility to comply with the requirements of section 458.320. A physician who violates the financial responsibility requirements in section 458.320 is subject to significant administrative penalties, including the possible revocation of his or her license and other discipline....
...Stat. (2006) (stating that "[violating] any provision of this chapter" is grounds for revocation of a license or discipline). The prospect of such administrative penalties provides a strong incentive to ensure physician compliance. Further, pursuant to section 458.320(4)(a), it is the obligation of each insurer, self-insurer, risk retention group or joint underwriting association to "promptly notify the [D]epartment [of *185 Health] of cancellation or non-renewal of insurance." Unless the physician...
...ch as notifying the department when one of its staff-privileged physicians is out of compliance with the statutory financial responsibility requirements, further indicates that the Legislature did not intend to impose civil liability on hospitals in section 458.320. Lastly, in contrast to the language used in 458.320(2), two provisions in chapter 458 expressly impose civil liability....
...a patient in an emergency room. The fact that both of these provisions impose physician liability in clear and express terms provides additional support for the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to impose civil liability on hospitals in section 458.320....
...Pizzarelli,
761 So.2d 294, 298 (Fla.2000)). Our analysis of chapter 458, specifically the text, context, and purpose of the relevant provisions, leads us to conclude that the Legislature did not intend to impose a duty on, or create a cause of action against, hospitals in section
458.320....
...Licensing and Registration," regulates hospital practice. Significantly, there is nothing in the provisions of chapter 395 that regulate hospital staff privileges that addresses physician compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of section
458.320. First, section
395.0191, Florida Statutes (2006), which outlines the rules pertaining to hospital staff privileges, *186 does not require the hospital to ensure physician compliance with section
458.320....
...[11] If the Legislature intended to impose an affirmative duty on a hospital to "condition" the grant of staff privileges on a physician's establishing financial responsibility, it would have included this requirement in the sections governing a hospital's grant of staff privileges. Like section
458.320, section
766.110, Florida Statutes (2006), was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1985....
...hysicians. The fact that section
766.110 expressly imposes a duty on and creates a cause of action against hospitals for a breach of that duty provides a strong indication that the Legislature did not intend to impose civil liability on hospitals in section
458.320....
...Had the Legislature intended to hold hospitals liable for failing to ensure physician financial responsibility, it would have either included such a duty and cause of action within section
766.110 or used parallel language to impose civil liability in section
458.320....
...Given the text of the provision, the stated intent, purpose, and general regulatory scheme of chapter 458, the applicable penalties, and the comparison to other provisions in the same *187 statutory scheme that clearly impose civil liability, we hold that section 458.320 neither imposes a duty on nor creates a cause of action against hospitals for failing to ensure the financial responsibility of their staff-privileged physicians....
...NOTES [1] After the amended complaint was filed, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice as to Max Horowitz. Subsequently, in October 2001, Lena Horowitz passed away and Stuart Horowitz, as personal representative to Lena Horowitz's estate, became the substituted party. [2] Section 458.320(2) sets forth the following financial responsibility requirements for physicians with hospital staff privileges: (2) Physicians who perform surgery in an ambulatory surgical center licensed under chapter 395 and, as a continuing condi...
..., in an amount not less than $250,000 per claim, with a minimum aggregate availability of credit of not less than $750,000. [3] The cases from these courts each involved malpractice that occurred in the hospitals. [4] Although Beam was decided after section 458.320 was enacted, the court did not refer to this or any other statutory provision....
...[6] Horowitz argued for the first time on appeal, at oral argument before this Court, that a breach of the alleged statutory duty here could form the basis of a common law negligence claim. We need not decide whether this alternative theory is applicable because we conclude, based on our analysis below, that section
458.320 does not impose a statutory duty on hospitals to ensure the financial competence of staff-privileged physicians. [7] See §
458.305(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). [8] Prior to 2003, section
458.320(2) provided that "[a]s a continuing condition of hospital staff privileges, physicians with staff privileges shall also be required to establish financial responsibility." Ch.2003-416, § 23, 27, Laws of Fla....
...Miller,
896 So.2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District concluded that a hospital could not be liable for failing to ensure a physician's compliance with the statutory financial responsibility requirements if that physician made an election under section
458.320(5)(g)....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302
...Winter Park Healthcare Group,
939 So.2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Shands Teaching Hospital Clinic, Inc. v. Juliana,
863 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Irving v. Doctors Hospital of Lake Worth, Inc.,
415 So.2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There is, however, no civil liability under F.S.
458.320(2)(b) to ensure that staff physicians are financially responsible....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...granted,
924 So.2d 808 (Fla.2006), supports their argument that no private right of action may be implied in this case. There, *1197 the plaintiff, who held an unsatisfied medical malpractice judgment against an uninsured physician, sought recovery under section
458.320, Florida Statutes (2004), from the hospital which granted staff privileges to the physician. Horowitz,
895 So.2d at 485-86. Section
458.320 in part requires licensed physicians to establish financial responsibility to satisfy malpractice judgments by specified methods....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2008 A.M.C. 548, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69430, 2007 WL 2719089
...Seaboard Coast Line R.R.,
281 So.2d 198, 201 (Fla. 1973). [7] Neither Fla. Stat. § 358.11(6) or Fla. Stat. § 358.320(1) exist in the Florida Statutory Code. This Court assumes that Plaintiff intended to cite Fla. Stat. §
458.311(6) and Fla. Stat. §
458.320(1). [8] Florida statute §
458.311(6) states the following: "[e]ach applicant who meets the requirements of this chapter shall be licensed as a physician, with rights as defined by law." Florida statute §
458.320(1) states in relevant part: "[a]s a condition of licensing and maintaining an active license ....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27603, 2004 WL 2203772
...Florida's Financial Responsibility Act requires a medical practitioner, as a condition of licensing, to establish and maintain either an escrow account, professional liability coverage, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim, with a minimum aggregate of at least $300,000. FLA. STAT. § 458.320(1)....
...The statute allows a doctor practicing with an active license who meets certain requirements to opt out of the requirements if he posts a sign informing patients, "Your doctor meets these requirements and has decided not to carry medical malpractice insurance." FLA. STAT. § 458.320(5)(f)....
...possess an active license at the time he treated Appellee, and the statute permanently disqualifies any doctor from exemption if he commits deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations with regard to any provision of the statute, see FLA. STAT. § 458.320(6)....
...e patients are "identifiable beneficiaries" as required for creation of a technical trust. The definition of "defalcation" as "a failure to produce funds entrusted to a fiduciary," Quaif,
4 F.3d at 955, further compels the conclusion that FLA. STAT. §
458.320 does not create a fiduciary duty, because no funds are "entrusted" to a doctor under the statute....
...Instead, the doctor must establish and maintain an escrow account, insurance, or a line of credit as a condition of licensing, in order to "demonstrate to the satisfaction of the board and the department financial responsibility to pay claims ..." FLA. STAT. § 458.320(1)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1033062
...ally responsible under Florida's mandatory financial responsibility law. In short, they allege Dr. Paschall was "bare." Financial responsibility is a statutorily-mandated condition of a physician's ability to maintain staff privileges at a hospital. § 458.320(2)(b), Fla....
...assure their staff physicians are financially responsible. Even though Beam was decided after the effective date of the Comprehensive Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1985, Beam does not cite the Reform Act. The pertinent portion of the Reform Act, section 458.320(2)(b), requires a physician, as a condition of having staff privileges, to maintain professional liability coverage of not less than $250,000 per claim or provide an escrow account or letter of credit in a similar amount. The obvious intent of the legislature was to make sure that a person injured by the medical malpractice of a doctor with staff privileges would be able to ultimately recover at least $250,000 of compensable damages. We read section 458.320(2)(b) as imposing a statutory duty on the hospital to assure the financial responsibility of its staff-privileged physicians who use the hospital for medical treatment and procedures....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 27924
...However, as to the dismissal of the portion of count XI that alleges liability on the part of Palms for failing to assure the financial responsibility of Drs. Hayter and Huff, we affirm but remand for entry of an order indicating that the dismissal is without prejudice. Section 458.320(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), mandates financial responsibility as a condition of a physician's ability to maintain staff privileges at a hospital....
...responsibility of its staff-privileged physicians who use the hospital for medical treatment and procedures. See Robert v. Paschall,
767 So.2d 1227 (Fla. *172 5th DCA 2000). [1] Thus, count XI does state a cause of action against the hospital under section
458.320(2)(b)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 204, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1491
...his case, renewal of a medical license in Florida. 4. On or about July 17, 1992, a formal Uniform Complaint Form was filed with the DPR. The complaint requested an investigation by the DPR of Gerard D. Grau for possible violation of Florida Statutes
458.320(5)(g) and
458.331(1)(a) and (g) [3] . 5. Fla.Stat.
458.320 subsections (1), (2) and (3) provide in essence that as a condition of licensing and prior to the renewal of an active license, a physician must maintain either 1) medical malpractice liability insurance, 2) an escrow account consisting of cash or assets eligible for deposit, or 3) an irrevocable letter of credit in order to satisfy any claims that may arise against the physician. 6. Fla.Stat.
458.320(5)(g) essentially provides that the financial responsibility requirements referenced above shall not apply to a physician who already holds a license if that physician agrees, upon the entry of an adverse final judgment arising from a medical...
...Grau, the Debtor, chose this route on November 1, 1991 when he signed a notarized statement with the renewal of his license to practice medicine. 7. On or about September 4, 1992, Mel Waxman, an investigator with the DPR issued an Investigative Report regarding alleged violations by Gerard D. Grau of F.S. §
458.320(5)(g) and §
458.331(1)(a) and (g) for failure to pay Branham's adverse final judgment arising from the Circuit Court medical malpractice action....
...cense to practice medicine by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the department of the board. . . . . (g) Failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician. [4] Pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 458.320(5)(g), Debtor would now be responsible for paying Branham's final judgment within 60 days of this date.
CopyCited 5 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 398, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 615, 29 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 162
...As a licensed physician in the State of Florida, Dr. Pouliot is subject to the laws of the State of Florida regulating the practice of medicine by licensed physicians, including, but not limited to, Chapter 458 of the Florida Statutes entitled "Medical Practice." Florida Statute § 458.320 (1991), entitled "Financial Responsibility" (the "Financial Responsibility Act"), which was in effect on the date of Tyler's injury states the requirements of financial responsibility for a medical physician practicing in the State of Florida, as well as the exceptions thereto....
...The Renewal *645 Form included the following statement: I have elected not to carry medical malpractice insurance or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility; however, I agree to satisfy any adverse judgments up to the minimum amounts pursuant to Section 458.320(5)(g)(1), Florida Statute....
...to any person to whom medical services are being provided that I have decided not to carry medical malpractice insurance or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility. I understand that such a sign or notice must contain the wording specified in Section 458.320(5)(g), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the requirements set forth in the Renewal Form and in Fla.Stat. § 458.320, Dr. Pouliot hung a sign on the wall of the reception area of his office (the "Sign"), which stated the mandatory language of Fla.Stat. § 458.320(5)(g)(4)....
...The Plaintiffs assert that Dr. Pouliot's "materially false" promise to pay a medical malpractice claim is evidenced through his signing of the Renewal Form and hanging of the Sign in the reception area of his office, as required by the DBPR and Fla.Stat. Ch. 458.320, respectively. The Plaintiffs contend that such promise was present since, at the time of Dr. Pouliot's compliance with the DBPR's and Fla.Stat. § 458.320's requirements and treatment of Sheila Caccamo, he had already taken steps to place his assets beyond the reach of prospective injured patients....
...sibility." The Sign does not state that Dr. Pouliot will satisfy all adverse judgments. The Sign only provides that Dr. Pouliot will either satisfy an adverse judgment against him or be subject to penalties pursuant to Florida law. Florida Statute §§
458.320(4)(b) and
458.331 set forth the penalties instituted by the DBPR and the Board for a physician's failure to comply with the Financial Responsibility Act. [3] The Plaintiffs also claim that since Dr. Pouliot signed the Renewal Form stating that he agrees to satisfy any adverse judgments up to the minimum amounts pursuant to Fla.Stat. §
458.320(5)(g)(1), the Renewal Form constitutes a materially false statement upon which they reasonably relied pursuant to 11 U.S.C....
...§ 523(a)(6) must be denied in part as a matter of law. E. DR. POULIOT'S LIABILITY IS NOT LIMITED TO $250,000.00 Dr. Pouliot claims that if his Debt is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523, this Court should limit his liability to $250,000.00. This Court finds that Fla.Stat. §§
458.320 and
458.331 do not limit the liability of a non-insured physician to $250,000.00 but merely set forth the penalties for failure of a non-insured physician to comply with Florida law. In addition, Fla.Stat. §
458.320(4)(b) clearly states that "[n]othing in this paragraph shall abrogate a judgment debtor's obligation to satisfy the entire amount of the judgment." Therefore, this Court finds that the Debt shall not be limited to $250,000.00 if this Court determines that the Debt is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C....
...A trial as to the dischargeability of the Debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) shall be set by this Court in a separate order. 6. Contemporaneous and on even date herewith, this Court enters a final judgment. DONE AND ORDERED. NOTES [1] Florida Statute § 458.320(5)(g)(4) states in pertinent part: A licensee who meets the requirements of this paragraph shall be required to either post notice in the form of a sign prominently displayed in the reception area and clearly noticeable by all patients or...
...Laurent, II, addressed the terms "claim" and "debt" in the context of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), this Court finds that such analysis is also applicable to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) since 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) applies to both subsections (A) and (B), respectively. [3] Florida Statute Chapter § 458.320(4)(b) provides: If financial responsibility requirements are met by maintaining an escrow account or letter of credit as provided in this section, upon the entry of an adverse final judgment arising from a medical malpractice arbitration a...
...ess otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by the parties. If timely payment is not made by the physician, the department shall suspend the license of the physician pursuant to procedures set forth in subparagraphs (5)(g)2., 3., and 4 [of Fla.Stat. 458.320]....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 293031
...[1] Plaintiff holds an unsatisfied judgment and has since sued the hospital for payment of the judgment. His suit was based on the failure of the hospital *486 to supervise its physician's compliance with the financial responsibility obligations under section 458.320....
...te parties to sue for damages from violations of regulatory law when the actual statutory text lacks such authority. But, yes, Murthy has been misunderstood. Three courts have justified finding a private right of damages actions against hospitals in section 458.320....
...2d DCA 2001); Mercy Hosp. Inc. v. Baumgardner,
870 So.2d 130, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); and Robert v. Paschall,
767 So.2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). These courts reached their result by the following reasoning: "The obvious intent of the legislature [in enacting Section
458.320(2)] was to make sure that a person injured by the medical malpractice of a doctor with staff privileges would be able to ultimately recover at least $250,000 of compensable damages. We read section
458.320(2)(b) as imposing a statutory duty on the hospital to assure the financial responsibility of its staff-privileged physicians who use the hospital for medical treatment and procedures." Baumgardner,
870 So.2d at 131 (quoting Robert,
767 So.2d at 1228)....
...Easterbrook, Statutes' Domains, 50 U. CHI. L.REV. 533, 546-47 (1983). From this cogent clarification of the boundary between legislative and judicial powers, the flaws in the logic of Baker, Baumgardner and Robert become apparent. The essential aim of section 458.320 is to have physicians furnish a form of financial security to satisfy malpractice judgments against them....
...doctor's unsatisfied judgment. Indeed, if one were inclined to infer a remedy not specified in *488 the text, it might more plausibly be something like injunctive relief against the hospital to enforce the statutory duty of policing compliance with section 458.320....
...The Legislature did not deem the goal of security for malpractice judgments so critical that it would make hospitals become virtual insurers for a doctor's security obligation. We therefore make our conclusion explicit. The Legislature has implied no damages remedy of any kind under section 458.320, whether it be based on strict liability, negligence, suretyship, contract, contribution, indemnification, criminal punishment, or any other legal theory the creative minds of lawyers can discern. It follows that our decision today is in direct conflict with Baker, Baumgardner and Robert. Reversed. STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 458.320(2), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 128, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 237, 39 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 74
...The malpractice case went to a jury on the issue of damages and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Church in December, 1998, for $250,000. Since 1987, the State of Florida has had a financial responsibility statute in effect to help ensure that doctors can satisfy malpractice claims. Under F.S. § 458.320(2), as a condition of licensing, a doctor with hospital privileges must comply with one of the following three methods *921 of demonstrating the financial capacity to pay claims and costs of a possible medical malpractice action: (1) maint...
...claim with an aggregate of at least $750,000; or (3) obtain and maintain an unexpired, irrevocable letter of credit of not less than $250,000 per claim with a minimum aggregate availability of at least $750,000. Dr. Hanft needed to comply with F.S. § 458.320(2) because he had hospital privileges....
...with an active license when, in fact, his license was inactive, and (2) Dr. Hanft willfully failed to inform the Plaintiff that he did not carry medical malpractice insurance or otherwise comply with the financial responsibility requirements of F.S. § 458.320....
...In order for a technical trust to exist, three elements must be satisfied: (1) a segregated trust res, (2) identifiable beneficiaries; and (3) affirmative trust duties established by contract or statute. See In re Hutchinson,
193 B.R. 61, 65 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1996). Florida Statutes §
458.320(2) meets all of these requirements....
...". Quaif does not require that there be an actual fund set up to establish the fiduciary capacity, to satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), only that there is an obligation to set up the fund. Dr. Hanft is not exempt from the fiduciary requirement of F.S. § 458.320(2) by meeting the posting requirements of F.S. § 458.320(5)(f)(7)....
...Hanft did, and meeting certain other criteria, which Dr. Hanft did. Dr. Hanft, however, cannot exempt out because at the time he was treating Ms. Church he did not have an active license. Therefore, he had to meet the fiduciary requirements. Additionally, F.S. § 458.320(6) permanently disqualifies any doctor from the exemption provisions if he commits deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations with regard to any provision of F.S. § 458.320....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4891108
...merely makes provision to secure the safety or welfare of the public as an entity, will not be construed as establishing a civil liability). See also Horowitz v. Plantation General Hospital Limited Partnership,
959 So.2d 176 (Fla.2007) (holding that section
458.320, Florida Statutes, which outlines the financial responsibility requirements for Florida physicians, did not create a cause of action against hospitals for failing to ensure the financial responsibility of their staff-privileged physicians)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 23008811
...Thereafter, Dr. DiRocco filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiffs were unable to recover on their judgments. The plaintiffs then brought separate actions against Mercy Hospital alleging strict liability under Florida's financial responsibility law, Section 458.320(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), and negligence for failure to ensure that staff physician Dr....
...The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on the strict liability claims and entered individual judgments of $250,000 each for the plaintiffs. Mercy Hospital appeals the adverse summary judgment. The plaintiffs cross-appeal the dismissal of their negligence claims. Section 458.320(2) requires physicians to comply with one of three financial responsibility options in order to obtain hospital staff privileges. A physician must have coverage in the amount of $250,000 per claim, by either establishing an escrow account, acquiring professional liability insurance, or maintaining a letter of credit. See § 458.320(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Alternatively, a physician is exempt from the requirements of Section 458.320(2) if he or she agrees to pay any medical-malpractice judgment creditor $250,000 of any judgment, informs patients the doctor does not carry medical malpractice insurance, and provides written notification to the Florida Department of Health demonstrating compliance with the statute. See § 458.320(5)(g), Fla. Stat. (2002). Mercy Hospital argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs, contending Section 458.320(2) does not impose liability upon a hospital to ensure a physician's compliance....
...5th DCA 2000), review denied,
786 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2001), and Baker v. Tenet Healthsystem Hosp., Inc.
780 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As noted in Robert v. Paschall,
767 So.2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000): "The obvious intent of the legislature [in enacting Section
458.320(2) ] was to make sure that a person injured by the medical malpractice of a doctor with staff privileges would be able to ultimately recover at least $250,000 of compensable damages. We read section
458.320(2)(b) as imposing a statutory duty on the hospital to assure the financial responsibility of its staff-privileged physicians who use the hospital for medical treatment and procedures." See also Baker v....
...Physicians who fall below the minimum standards "shall be prohibited from practicing in this state." Id. To that end, Chapter 458 is a licensing statute. As a condition of licensing, a physician is required to demonstrate a financial ability to pay medical malpractice claims. § 458.320(1), Fla....
...vings association organized under the laws of the United States that has its principal place of business in this state or has a branch office which is authorized under the laws of this state or of the United States to receive deposits in this state. § 458.320(2)(a),(b),(c)....
...A staff physician's coverage is inclusive of the coverage provided for licensure. Id. *133 Moreover, this financial responsibility statute expressly provides that physicians need not comply with the enumerated financial requirements if they agree to certain conditions. § 458.320(5)....
...Furnishes the department with a copy of a timely filed notice of appeal and either: (I) A copy of a supersedeas bond properly posted in the amount required by law; or (II) An order from a court of competent jurisdiction staying execution on the final judgment pending disposition of the appeal. § 458.320(5)(g)(1). Failure to comply with the conditions of subsection 1 results in an emergency order of suspension which may be followed by disciplinary action. § 458.320(5)(g)(2),(3),(4)....
...iffs, such as the Roberts, are compensated assuming they are so entitled, at least up to $250,000. Id. at 1229. Similarly, the Second District, relying on Robert, affirmed a dismissal without prejudice of a plaintiff's claim against a hospital under section 458.320, finding the claim premature because the plaintiff had yet to establish liability on the part of the staff physician....
...for Retarded CitizensVolusia, Inc. v. Fletcher,
741 So.2d 520, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)("Had it been the intent of the legislature to abrogate the well-settled common law rule ... the legislature no doubt would have specifically said so."). There is no such language in section
458.320....
...NOTES [1] The statute provides that financial ability can be demonstrated in various ways: 1) The establishment and maintenance of an escrow account; 2) professional liability coverage or 3) obtaining and maintaining an unexpired, irrevocable letter of credit. § 458.320(1)(a),(b),(c)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 224, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 930
...Based upon circumstances surrounding the medical malpractice actions, the Sanguonchittes and Ms. McAloon seek dismissal of Dr. Farkas' bankruptcy premised upon the following grounds: (1) Dr. Farkas' bankruptcy interferes with the State of Florida's regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 458.320 and Art....
...Farkas' bankruptcy was filed in bad faith under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a). The Sanguonchittes contend that Dr. Farkas filed his bankruptcy in an effort to interfere with the State of Florida's obligation to protect the public's health. The Sanguonchittes cite to Fla. Stat. 458.320(1) ("Florida Medical Financial Responsibility Law") which provides: As a condition of licensing and maintaining an active license, and prior to the issuance or renewal of an active license or reactivation of an inactive license for the practi...
...For physicians with privileges at hospitals the required method for demonstrating financial responsibility mandates that the physician establish an escrow account, maintain a policy of professional, liability insurance, or provide an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $250,000. However, Fla. Stat. § 458.320(5)(g) provides that a physician with hospital privileges need not obtain the escrow account, insurance policy, or letter of credit, if the physician agrees to pay a medical malpractice judgment up to the amount of $250,000. *338 The Sanguonchittes allege that Dr. Farkas' chosen method of compliance, in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 458.320(5)(g), was his agreement to make payment on any medical malpractice judgment up to $250,000....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 475437
...*887 Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cortina, P.A., and Gail Leverett Parenti, Coral Gables, for appellant. Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Joel S. Perwin, and Lisa S. Levine, for appellee. Before LEVY, C.J., and SHEPHERD, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SHEPHERD, J. This is an appeal of a summary judgment granted Josie Miller under section 458.320 of the Florida Statutes (2002) against Parkway Regional Medical Center to recover the "minimal financial responsibility amount" of $250,000 on a $1.4 million medical malpractice judgment Miller had previously received against Dr....
...In November 2002, Miller was awarded a judgment in the amount of $1,394,000.00, and a cost judgment of approximately $13,000.00. Dr. Nanes filed for bankruptcy, but gave Miller $20,000 towards the medical malpractice judgment. Miller then made a demand on Parkway to pay $250,000 of the outstanding judgment under section 458.320. Miller asserted that section 458.320 of the Florida Statutes required the hospital to tender the first $250,000 to meet Dr....
...Nanes subsequently failed to pay any judgments for his negligent acts. Under that section, physicians, as a condition of receiving staff privileges at a hospital, are required to demonstrate financial responsibility through one of many elective choices. Section 458.320(2)(b) [1] allows staff privileges to be conditioned upon *888 either a showing of professional liability insurance coverage, an escrow account, or an irrevocable letter of credit. Alternatively, a physician can "opt out" of the requirements of subsection (2)(b) through section 458.320(5)(g), [2] whereby the physician agrees to be personally responsible for the payment of the first $250,000 of a judgment, or be subject to discipline by the Department of Health....
...Nanes had already paid towards the judgment. This appeal and cross-appeal follows. At the outset, we note that there is a developing controversy in the courts of appeal of this state concerning whether or not a cause of action exists against a hospital under section 458.320 of the Florida Statutes for the failure of their staff-privileged physicians to comply with the statute....
...physician's malpractice judgment-paying skills has been noted"); compare Garcia v. Duffy,
492 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (Florida law does recognize a cause of action for negligent hiring and negligent retention). A statutory cause of action under section
458.320 of the Florida Statutes was first recognized without much discussion in the case of Robert v....
...Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc.,
780 So.2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). More recently, this court followed suit in Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Baumgardner,
870 So.2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), holding that a hospital is strictly liable if it grants staff privileges to a doctor who has not complied with section
458.320(2)(b)....
...See Mercy Hosp.,
870 So.2d at 132 (Green, J. dissenting); see also Plantation General Hosp. Ltd. P'ship v. Horowitz,
895 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (majority opinion) (holding that a hospital is not strictly liable for the misdeeds of its staff physicians under section
458.320 and certifying conflict with Mercy Hospital ) and (Farmer, J....
...Nanes made an election under subsection (5)(g) which specifically authorizes physicians to opt out of (2)(b) by personally agreeing to be liable or face discipline, and also because here, Parkway has specifically asserted same as a defense. If we were to agree with the lower court, then we would necessarily be holding that section 458.320 of the Florida Statutes was a strict liability statute to which there is no defense....
...are in high risk areas by allowing physicians the flexibility to choose among different alternatives of financial responsibility. See infra fn.4. Therefore, we decline the invitation to judicially engraft a rule of such "super-strict" liability into section 458.320, see Association for Retarded Citizens Volusia, Inc....
...2080,
45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (judicial implication of a private cause of action must be "consistent with" the legislative scheme). As such, the lower court erred in granting summary judgment against Parkway after Dr. Nanes had made an authorized election under subsection 5(g). Reversed. NOTES [1] Section
458.320(2)(b) provides: (2) Physicians who perform surgery in an ambulatory surgical center......
...from an authorized insurer.... (c) Obtaining and maintaining an unexpired irrevocable letter of credit ... in an amount not less than $250,000 per claim, with a minimum aggregate availability of credit of not less than $750,000.... [2] Specifically, section 458.320(5)(g) provides, in pertinent part: (5) The requirements of subsections (1), (2), and (3) shall not apply to: * * * (g) Any person holding an active license under this chapter who agrees to meet all of the following criteria: (1) Upon...
...," as the election is sometimes described, must also provide notice to his patients through a posting in his office or via another prescribed method. This way, a patient uncomfortable with a "bare" physician can elect not to engage his services. See § 458.320(5)(g), Fla....
...threatened the quality of health care services in Florida as physicians become increasingly wary of high-risk procedures and are forced to downgrade their specialties to obtain relief from oppressive insurance rates." Id. at 1182-1183. The 1985 Act thus spawned section 458.320(2)(b), which statutorily specified the degree of financial responsibility required to be exhibited by hospital staff-privileged physicians and, in 1986, the Legislature followed up by adopting a substantial number of amendments to the...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1774
...00 if the physician has hospital staff privileges), or that those who choose to practice "bare" maintain a bond, escrow account or letter of credit such that an aggrieved patient who first proves his/her claim may recover such damages. Fla.Stat. Ch. 458.320....
...and he failed to fully explain the complications associated with the procedure such as fat reabsorption, fat necrosis, and the likelihood of cyst formation. Finally, the Court finds the Debtor's failure to post the disclosure mandated by Fla. Stat. 458.320 when he chose to discontinue his medical malpractice insurance was an intentional effort by the Debtor to avoid or deflect inquiry regarding his financial status....
...Doyan failed to use the words "medical malpractice insurance" or to indicate that the notice was being placed or posted as required by law. Dr. Doyan intentionally omitted any meaningful explanation of the substance or intent of Florida law embodied in Chapter 458. Under Florida Statute 458.320, the notice must state: Under Florida law, physicians are generally required to carry medical malpractice insurance or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility to cover potential claims for medical malpractice....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
however, no civil liability under F.S.
458.320(2)(b) to ensure that staff physicians are
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2013 WL 1233190, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42330
...In addition, the State Court determined that Fla. Stat. §
627.848 (l)(d) did not require that any notice be given specifically to any “Aeord certificate holders” or addressees. (Id. at Stipulated Fact 54). The State Court further determined that Fla. Stat. §
458.320 did not create a duty on the part of either PAC or Evanston to give notice to the Department of Health prior to cancellation of the Policy....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3697, 2007 WL 755100
...of appellee Tenet Healthsystem North Shore, Inc., etc., finding that the hospital is relieved of any financial responsibility for the first $250,000.00 of the judgment entered against its staff physician where the physician elected to opt out under section
458.320(5)(g), Florida Statutes (2005), and he later failed to satisfy the $250,000.00 entered against him. We affirm based upon the authority of North Miami Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Miller,
896 So.2d 886, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), where this Court stated that section
458.320(5)(g), Florida Statutes, “necessarily relieve[s] hospitals of any liability if its physicians who, though initially agreeing to be personally liable, are ultimately unable to pay any subsequent judgments.” Affirmed.
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.
...ce the patient to agree to the medical procedure. The Court, when reviewing these factors and the physician’s failure to post a disclosure of “no insurance” concluded, “... the Debtor’s failure to post the disclosure mandated by Fla. Stat. 458.320 2 when he chose to dis *315 continue his medical malpractice insurance was an intentional effort by the Debtor to avoid or deflect inquiry regarding his financial status.” Doyan at 258....
...ns of Chapter 458. Fla. Stat. §
458.327 . In particular, Chapter 458 requires a physician have malpractice insurance or have a bond or irrevocable letter of credit for $ 100,000.00 per claim with a minimum aggregate available amount of $300,000.00. Section
458.320(l)(c), Fla....
